Determining levels of fecal incontinence in the community: A New Zealand Cross-sectional study

Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

Volumn 54, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1381-1387

  Sharma, A ^a   Marshall, R J ^a   Macmillan, A K ^a   Merrie, A E H ^a   Reid, P ^a   Bissett, I P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Cross sectional studies; Fecal incontinence diagnosis; Fecal incontinence epidemiology; Health surveys; Prevalence; Quality of life; Questionnaires

Indexed keywords

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FECES INCONTINENCE; HUMAN; NEW ZEALAND; PREVALENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; REVIEW;

ADULT; COHORT STUDIES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FECAL INCONTINENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW ZEALAND; PREVALENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF-ASSESSMENT; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 80455168662     PISSN: 00123706     EISSN: 15300358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31822dd0f0     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Leigh RJ, Turnberg LA. Faecal incontinence: the unvoiced symptom. Lancet. 1982;1:1349-1351.
2. Macmillan AK, Merrie AE, Marshall RJ, Parry BR. The prevalence of fecal incontinence in community-dwelling adults: a systematic review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47: 1341-1349. (Pubitemid 39180210)
3. Madoff RD, Parker SC, Varma MG, Lowry AC. Faecal incontinence in adults. Lancet. 2004;364:621-632. (Pubitemid 39094181)
4. Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA, Lowry AC. Measuring fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1591-1605. (Pubitemid 37532340)
5. Rockwood TH. Incontinence severity and QOL scales for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:S106-S113. (Pubitemid 38036850)
6. Perry S, Shaw C, McGrother C, et al. Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community. Gut. 2002;50:480-484. (Pubitemid 34638865)
7. Elections New Zealand. Enrolment Statistics. http://www.elections.org.nz/ ages/electorate-all-0704.html. Accessed August 26, 2009.
8. Johanson JF, Lafferty J. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91:33-36. (Pubitemid 26026033)
9. Kalantar JS, Howell S, Talley NJ. Prevalence of faecal incontinence and associated risk factors; an underdiagnosed problem in the Australian community? Med J Aust. 2002;176:54-57. (Pubitemid 34116241)
10. Lam TC, Kennedy ML, Chen FC, Lubowski DZ, Talley NJ. Prevalence of faecal incontinence: obstetric and constipation-related risk factors; a population-based study. Colorectal Dis. 1999;1: 197-203.
11. Siproudhis L, Pigot F, Godeberge P, Damon H, Soudan D, Bigard MA. Defecation disorders: a French population survey. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:219-227. (Pubitemid 43219958)
12. Macmillan AK, Merrie AE, Marshall RJ, Parry BR. Design and validation of a comprehensive fecal incontinence questionnaire. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1502-1522.
13. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42:1525-1532. (Pubitemid 30007584)
14. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:9-17. (Pubitemid 30056656)
15. Thompson WG, Longstreth GF, Drossman DA, Heaton KW, Irvine EJ, Muller-Lissner SA. Functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain. Gut. 1999;45(suppl 2):II43-II47. (Pubitemid 29434812)
16. Reilly WT, Talley NJ, Pemberton JH, Zinsmeister AR. Validation of a questionnaire to assess fecal incontinence and associated risk factors: Fecal Incontinence Questionnaire. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:146-154. (Pubitemid 30115093)
17. Brogger J, Nystad W, Cappelen I, Bakke P. No increase in response rate by adding a web response option to a postal population survey: a randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9:e40.
18. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;324: 1183.
19. Roberts LM, Wilson S, Roalfe A, Bridge P. A randomised controlled trial to determine the effect on response of including a lottery incentive in health surveys [ISRCTN32203485]. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:30.
20. Whiteman MK, Langenberg P, Kjerulff K, McCarter R, Flaws JA. A randomized trial of incentives to improve response rates to a mailed women's health questionnaire. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2003;12:821-828. (Pubitemid 37361924)
21. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, et al. Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5: 1-256.
22. Search Partition Analysis (SPAN) software. The University of Auckland School of Population Health. http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/depts/epi/span/ . Accessed August 26, 2009.
23. Marshall RJ. Scaled rectangle diagrams can be used to visualize clinical and epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58: 974-981. (Pubitemid 41316440)
24. Marshall RJ. Cardiovascular risk can be represented by scaled rectangle diagrams. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:998-1000.
25. Nelson RL. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:S3-S7. (Pubitemid 38036836)
26. Whitehead WE, Borrud L, Goode PS, et al. Fecal incontinence in US adults: epidemiology and risk factors. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:512-517.
27. Kuehn BM. Silence masks prevalence of fecal incontinence. JAMA. 2006;295:1362-1363.
28. Macmillan AK, Merrie AEH. Epidemiology of faecal incontinence. In: Ratto C, Doglietto GB, eds. Fecal Incontinence: Diagnosis and Treatment. New York, NY: Springer; 2007:17-33.
29. Chassagne P, Landrin I, Neveu C, et al. Fecal incontinence in the institutionalized elderly: incidence, risk factors, and prognosis. Am J Med. 1999;106:185-190. (Pubitemid 29115959)
30. Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:859-883.
31. Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q. 1996;60:275-304.